Holly Wells and
Jessica Chapman were abducted from their home village of Soham
in Cambridgeshire, England, on 4 August 2002, and never seen
alive again. Thirteen days later on 17 August, their bodies were
found in a drainage ditch only yards away from the perimeter
fence at the giant United States Air Force base at Lakenheath in
Suffolk, roughly 16 miles north-north-east of Soham. To help
describe what is almost impossible to explain with words alone,
ten-inch high-resolution aerial reconnaissance photographs and
maps of the alleged Lakenheath crime scene are provided on this
page. Because of these very large photographs and maps, the page
will take a long time to load, but please be patient, the
startling imagery is well worth the wait.
Within hours of the two badly decomposed bodies
being found, and without bothering to interview any of the
5,000+ American servicemen based at Lakenheath, police arrested
Soham residents Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr for the murders.
Despite the remand prisoners pleading not guilty, both were then
handled in an appalling manner reminiscent of the illegal
American concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Those
readers seeking full details of this earlier period are advised
to scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the links
labeled “Holly & Jessica Reports 1, 2, 3” Indeed, in terms of
understanding the politically supercharged nature of this
extraordinary trial at the Old Bailey, a comprehensive knowledge
of past events is considered essential.

TRIAL ANALYSIS

After more than a
year of stalling, the trial of Huntley and Carr commenced on 5
November 2003, in Court Number One at the famous “Old Bailey” in
London. The location itself is the first indication that this
trial is of special political significance, because most British
murder suspects are tried by perfectly competent Crown Courts
scattered far and wide across the land, including the counties
of Norfolk and Suffolk. Without direct political pressure from
the British Home Office in London, the two suspects would
unquestionably have been tried in a local Crown Court.
The logic behind the selection of the Old Bailey for
this trial lies partly in its fearsome reputation over the
years, at least since the present building was opened by King
Edward VII in 1907. Some of the more notorious trials held at
the Old Bailey this century include Doctor Crippen, the
“Yorkshire Ripper” and the Kray Twins of East End fame. In the
absence of any evidence against Huntley and Carr, the Home
Office intended to use this fearsome Old Bailey reputation to
artificially bolster its case.
This is not in the spirit of a motto above the Old
Bailey door that reads, “Defend the Children of the Poor and
Punish The Wrongdoer”, but the Home Office didn’t care about
such niceties in this new age of synthetic terrorism. Entirely
in accord with the spirit of the illegal American concentration
camp at Guantanamo Bay, the Home Office was about to reverse the
motto to “Protect the Wrongdoer and Punish the Children of the
Poor”. You will now discover this for yourselves, by analyzing
the frightening number of blatant legal deceptions by the
Prosecution in Court Number One.
On 5 November 2003, Crown Prosecutor Richard Latham
QC, set the tone for the entire trial when he told the jury, "We
understand from those representing Huntley it is unlikely to be
disputed by Huntley that the girls went into his home shortly
after 6.30pm that evening, that Huntley was the only other
person there at the time and that they died within a short time
of going inside his home” …."It was Huntley who took their
bodies to the place where they were found.”
The defence did not confirm this claim, and Huntley
was not even in court to hear it, but the boot was already in
with a vengeance. Over the two weeks that followed, this
unsubstantiated claim by Latham would become the prosecution
catechism, constantly repeated on television and printed in full
by at least two [different] newspapers every day, until the
British public had been saturated with Huntley’s apparent
“confession”. But it was not a confession at all, was it? No, it
was just a monstrous legal trick designed to get the media
cheerleaders on side, and hopefully subdue the British public.

“The prosecution
case is that these two girls fell into the hands of Huntley
shortly after leaving home. For some reason known only to him he
chose to murder them both. We allege that he went on to remove
the bodies from Soham”. Latham then went on to say that for
this reason the focus of the trial is likely to centre on
whether or not, "it could be construed that the deaths while he
[Huntley] was there with them in his house amounted to murder".
This was another devastating “smoke and mirrors”
legal conjuring trick, because one of the most obvious
deficiencies in the bogus prosecution case against Huntley is
the total absence of any forensic evidence linking Holly Wells
or Jessica Chapman to the inside of Ian Huntley’s house. Richard
Latham QC knew this of course, so took a neat short cut [for the
written court record] by simplistically stating that they were.
The media cheerleaders loved him, and broadcast the lie far and
wide.
Does anyone out there believe for a moment that an
inexperienced school caretaker could simultaneously subdue two
violently struggling 10-year-old girls, kill them one after the
other in his own home without a sound, then remove every trace
of their DNA to the point where police forensic experts could
not find any at all? This is an absolute fantasy, because
British police forensic experts are known world wide for their
skills. If two girls had been attacked, let alone killed in
Huntley’s house, police would have found hundreds of microscopic
DNA traces. Alas, they found none.
Latham was ready for a little skepticism, so the
next morning [6 November 2003] he said that a female detective
who had visited Huntley’s house noted that the ground floor was
tidy, and that there was a "strong smell of a lemony cleaning
product". She also found it “strange” that there was washing on
the line when it was raining. Though Latham was obviously using
this statement to subtly back up his claim that Holly and
Jessica were inside Huntley’s house the night before, we still
need to examine the female detective’s statement more closely.
Since when has it been a crime to keep your house
tidy, use lemon-scented cleaning fluid, and forget to bring some
clothes in from the washing line? If these items are really
cause for suspicion, then half the housewives in Great Britain
must also be investigated for murder. Furthermore, there will
likely be a huge queue of criminals wanting to purchase this
incredible “lemony cleaning product”, which is allegedly capable
of removing all traces of DNA from a major crime scene in less
than twelve hours.
According to Richard Latham QC, Ian Huntley made a
"major attempt" to sanitize his car in the days after the
disappearance of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, actions which
Latham claim show a man “who is thinking calmly and carefully
and is calculating his way forward". These uncorroborated claims
include removing an existing boot carpet, changing tyres, and
cleaning the Ford Fiesta while others were out searching for the
girls, presumably after casually dumping the two small bodies at
USAF Lakenheath.

Once again we are
left wondering which of these actions [if true] constitutes an
illegal or even suspicious act. Specifically where the boot
carpet is concerned, Latham explained that when Huntley bought
the car it had a professionally fitted carpet, which had been
changed for another piece of domestic carpet by the time police
seized the car. It is a [little known] fact that Huntley owns a
large Alsation dog, which like our own Alsation :”Archer”, is
more than capable of destroying a fitted car carpet completely
in a matter of days.
Years ago we used to take Archer around England in a
Ford Cortina station wagon, and he completely shredded the
expensive fitted carpet in less than two weeks. My solution was
to throw away the tattered shreds of the Cortina’s luxurious
shag, cut a piece of cheap domestic carpet to roughly the same
size, and throw it in the back of the wagon. Ian Huntley bought
his car in July 2001, and my best guess, which is every bit as
valid as Latham’s, is that the Fiesta’s fitted carpet would have
needed to be replaced by August 2001 at the very latest, i.e.;
a full year before Holly and Jessica vanished.
Potentially more damning but equally misleading, was
Latham’s claim that on Monday 5 August 2003, the day after Holly
and Jessica vanished, four new Sava Effecta tyres were fitted to
a red Ford Fiesta at a garage in Ely .The registration was
different to Huntley's car but Mr Latham suggested, "The man who
turned up asked for a different registration number to be put on
the paperwork and slipped £10 to the mechanic in order for that
to be achieved."
Not according to the mechanic in question, who said
on the telephone that no such statement was ever made, and no
man of Huntley’s description had ever visited the garage. “I’ve
seen him on TV dozens of times”, the mechanic said, “I would
remember if he had ever been here for a tyre change.” Indeed he
would, so more “smoke and mirrors” from Richard Latham QC, no
doubt designed to deflect attention away from the most
interesting and damning aspect of Ian Huntley’s red Ford Fiesta.
What about DNA from Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman,
inside the Ford Fiesta? Remember that Ian Huntley stands accused
of throwing both bodies inside the car, then driving sixteen
miles across country on rough bumpy roads, before allegedly
dumping the small bodies in a drainage ditch close to the
perimeter fence at USAF Lakenheath.

Short of taking a
car to pieces and immersing each individual component in an acid
bath, there is no known way of removing all traces of human DNA.
Microscopic particles vanish into more than a hundred hidden
nooks and crannies, and sit there waiting to be found by
diligent police forensic experts. So how many DNA traces of
Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman did police find inside Ian
Huntley’s red Ford Fiesta? None. Not one, meaning that just like
Ian Huntley’s house in Soham, the two girls were never inside
the vehicle at any time.
In order to try and “cover” this critical deficiency
the prosecution then claimed that traces of chalk and concrete
particles used as a surface on the track [at Lakenheath] had
been found on the bottom of Huntley's car, and pollen grains
found inside the vehicle that matched the area. It was a nice
try, but pointless and grossly misleading. Because the total
lack of human DNA from either girl proved they had never been
transported in Huntley’s red Fiesta, then where or when the car
was driven, and what might or might not be stuck to the
underside of the vehicle, is completely irrelevant.
The biggest “smoke and mirrors” prosecution
conjuring trick of week one, was unquestionably that of the
bright-red Manchester United T-shirts worn by the two girls the
day they vanished. Nowadays if you key “Holly Jessica” into the
Google image engine, most of the front page fills up with
photographs of the girls wearing these famous T-shirts, and
there is a natural tendency to believe Holly and Jessica’s
shirts are unique. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tens
of thousands of Manchester United T-shirts have been produced by
the same mill from identical red fibres, to the point where they
can be purchased by anyone with minimum effort. Identical
T-shirts are available anonymously on the Internet for £29.99

It is alleged by
the prosecution that the Manchester United shirts “worn by the
girls were cut from their bodies and burned in a bin at Soham
Village College” [where Huntley worked], where they were finally
and very conveniently discovered by police on 16 August 2002,
though Huntley was not present. . Richard Latham QC said that
hairs from Huntley's head had been found mixed in with the
clothing in the bin, as were his fingerprints. ,and his
fingerprints were found inside the bag. “We say the clothing was
in the bottom of the bin, and after the clothing was there the
bin liner had been put in it and spread and his fingerprints are
on the spreading process, as it were, of the bin liner.”
This initially sounds like fatal evidence against
Huntley, until you realise that despite his fingerprints and
hair being found on the inside of a waste bag, which is
perfectly normal for a caretaker responsible for ALL waste bags
at the college, police forensic experts did not recover any of
Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman’s DNA from these red shirts,
which turned up in the nick of time, so to speak. The lack of
the girl’s DNA on the shirts proves these were not the shirts
Holly and Jessica were wearing when they vanished, but clumsy
substitutes. In other words, a person or persons unknown
“planted” the shirts, and also planted loose fibres from the
same substitute shirts in Ian Huntley’s house.
In light of this, and were it not so serious, the
prosecution’s claim about the red fibres in Huntley’s house
would be laughable. Latham claimed that 15 fibres were found on
a yellow shirt discovered in the main bedroom, three on a pair
of beige trousers, again in the bedroom, and one on a grey
fleece also in the bedroom. An extraordinary situation, when you
think about it carefully. We know that police found no trace of
Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman’s DNA anywhere in the house, and
we know that none was found on the two red substitute shirts, so
what is Huntley actually guilty of?
Huntley is guilty of going about his business
lawfully at the college, shedding a few hairs and fingerprints
as he went, which then mysteriously found their way into close
proximity with two red Manchester United shirts [and fibres from
those shirts], which the total lack of DNA proved conclusively
were never worn by either girl.
Before we join the jury for a visit to USAF
Lakenheath at the beginning of week two, let us close the book
forever on the Soham crime scene, by borrowing witness WPC Anna
Burton, who actually appeared in court much later on 14
November. WPC Burton is a police dog handler who attended Soham
Village during Sunday evening to assist in searching for the
missing girls. Her trained tracker dog had Holly Wells' scent,
and for a while the pair searched around the village without any
success. Then just after midnight, WPC Burton bumped into Ian
Huntley near Soham College.
“It was wonderful to run into the caretaker because
he would know the layout of the place and he had offered to help
look around”… "I just thanked him and said I was very grateful
for his help, particularly because of the fact it was so late”
WPC Burton told how she able to ask Huntley about buildings
having alarms, and they spent an hour going round the site
together, only going inside buildings if they were unlocked,
meaning Holly and Jessica could have got inside.
WPC Burton asked him what the hangar building was, where the
court has heard the charred remnants of the girls’ clothes were
later found hidden in a bin, and was told it was a Groundsman’s
building. She asked if he had the keys and was told he did not.
WPC Burton let her dog sniff round the outside of the building,
but said it drew no reaction.
The seminal clue here is not that WPC Burton’s
trained police dog failed to react to the hangar building where
the substitute red shirts would later be planted, but because
the dog completely failed to react to Ian Huntley himself.
Remember that the dog was following Holly Wells’ scent, and then
came into very close proximity to the man who stands accused of
attacking and murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman just a
few hours earlier, and is then alleged to have traveled in a
car with their corpses all the way to Lakenheath. Believe me, if
Huntley had been anywhere near Holly Wells at any time during
the evening, WPC Burton’s trained dog would have picked it up in
seconds. So let me repeat that one more time, the highly-trained
police tracker dog failed to react in close proximity to Ian
Huntley.
In summary then, before we set off for Lakenheath
with the jury, the Soham crime scene has proved absolutely no
connection between Ian Huntley, and either Holly Wells or
Jessica Chapman. The prosecution claims both girls were inside
Huntley’s house, but the total lack of DNA proves they were not.
The prosecution claims both girls were inside Huntley’s car, but
the total lack of DNA proves they were not. A highly trained
police tracker dog following Holly Wells’ scent on the night of
the incident, does not react at all when placed in close
proximity to the alleged murderer. At this stage, and despite
the pompous rubbish being peddled in the Old Bailey by the
prosecution, Huntley has no case to answer at all.

The sub text on the
photograph above shows the level of concern that all should feel
about this trial. Juries travel to crime scenes in buses on a
regular basis, but never in the presence of more than one
hundred police officers. So who did the Home Office believe was
about to attack these "twelve good men and true" of the Jury?
Basque Separatists perhaps, or even the fabled Al Qaeda? The
whole thing is nothing more than a distasteful Home Office
stunt, designed to get the “right sort” of media publicity.
We need not bother with the brief Soham part of the
visit, because we already know there is nothing there of
interest, other than a few scraps of red fibre from substitute
Manchester United shirts. So let us bypass Soham, and rejoin the
Jury as its members visit the crime scene close to the perimeter
fence at USAF Lakenheath.
"We suggest that Ian Huntley knew this area really
well," Mr Latham said, "Whoever it was who dumped the bodies
would not have set off down this track in the dark unless they
knew where they were going and what they would find. Whoever
dumped the bodies knew it would be a suitable place to hide them
and they would be unlikely to be caught in the act. It was an
ideal place and he [Huntley] was thinking when he set off from
Soham that evening, thinking quite clearly and calmly, not in a
panic trying to get rid of those bodies as quickly as possible."

In the annals of
British legal history, in is unlikely that any other Queens
Counsel has shot himself through the foot quite so severely with
a single long-winded statement like this. Latham’s words are the
exact opposite of reality where Huntley is concerned, and this
press release dated March 2002 and authorized by Lieutenant
Chris Watt of USAF Lakenheath, proves why.“Nearly 60
closed circuit television cameras went operational here the
first week of March. Placed in all areas around RAF Lakenheath
and RAF Feltwell, the anti-terrorism force protection cameras
give the 48th Security Forces Squadron increased ability to deal
with force protection issues and add another layer of security
and safety to the base.
“Now one man can cover several positions at once,” said Master
Sgt. Jim Kendall, 48th SFS police services NCOIC. “The new
system augments the forces that we already have in place.”
“Operated by handpicked, trained security forces 24
hours a day, AT/FP CCTV allows security forces to monitor more
than forty camera views at once.” In fact, said Kendall, the
system has already been used to reduce the time it takes to
apprehend drivers that run the gates.
“We can follow gate-runners with the cameras and
record their actions until our forces catch up with them,” said
Kendall. “Recording a gate-runner’s actions also helps us
monitor a suspect for anti-terrorism and force protection
activities.” RAF Lakenheath is the first base in U.S. Air Forces
in Europe to install an AT/FP CCTV system, said Kendall.”
What the press release does not mention is that on
the same date, USAF Lakenheath personnel mounted additional
armed patrols inside and outside the perimeter wire, 24 hours
per day, every day including Sundays and public holidays.
Remember that the 60 anti-terrorist cameras were switched on,
and the extra patrols started, a full five months before Ian
Huntley is accused of “dumping” Holly and Jessica’s bodies into
a water-filled drainage ditch, itself within easy range of
Lakenheath’s “always-on” infra-red-capable day and night video
cameras.
It actually gets worse than this, far worse. If you
look at the detailed maps and photographs of the airfield
carefully, you will notice that the “crime scene” is very close
to one end of the active runway, and thus constitutes a suitable
firing point for a shoulder-launched “terrorist” surface to air
missile. The USAF pays special attention to such areas, with
cameras available at all times for their detailed surveillance,
with video footage archived for later examination of possible
suspects.
Latham’s claim that, “whoever dumped the bodies knew
it would be a suitable place to hide them and they would be
unlikely to be caught in the act” is absolutely correct,
provided that the culprit knew the precise layout of the
anti-terrorist security cameras, their exact fields of view, and
the precise timing of the armed patrols around the Lakenheath
perimeter. Because the camera fields of view are adjusted on a
daily basis, and the timing of the patrols altered constantly
for security reasons, the only culprits capable of dumping the
bodies in the drainage ditch without getting caught, would be an
American [or Americans] inside USAF Lakenheath, and not just
anyone. Whoever it was had access to the anti-terrorist
operations schedules, indicating a very high security clearance.
Perhaps now the Home Office will be prepared to tell
the British public why it failed to take action in this regard,
and instead decided to deliberately psychologically abuse and
“fit up” a man known to be innocent of any crime.

Update 25 Nov 2003BBC Conspires to Pervert The
Course of Justice

At 6.18 p.m. on 24
November, the Government-controlled BBC issued a sweeping
statement that appeared to seal the fate of Ian Huntley, prime
suspect in the Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman double murder
case. Under the dramatic headline “Huntley Admits Cutting Up
Clothes”, the BBC used its huge media weight and perceived
public credibility to claim:
“Ian Huntley has admitted cutting off the clothes of
Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman as their bodies lay in a ditch.
His lawyer told the Old Bailey Mr Huntley took the clothes back
to the Soham school where he worked as a caretaker, and set them
on fire. Stephen Coward QC [for Huntley] said his client put the
burnt clothes in the bin inside a hangar, where they were later
found. The court has already heard Mr Huntley accepts the
10-year-old girls died at his home”.
When the BBC printed and broadcast this scandalous
statement at 6.18 p.m., they already knew it was a complete lie,
and have thus placed themselves and their parent corporation
completely outside the law. At the very least, those BBC
personnel directly responsible for this blatant deception must
be charged with “Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice”.
Ian Huntley has made no admission about planting
clothes anywhere at any time, and, as the BBC also knows very
well, has never on any occasion “accepted” that the two girls
“died at his home”. Earlier in the day Stephen Coward QC had
merely outlined what he deduced the prosecution was trying to
claim in respect of his client Huntley and the clothes in Soham
College, and made the quizzical nature of his questions very
plain by stating on open court “That is at least a possibility,
is it not?"
There is no excuse for the BBC here, because
everyone has access to the online court transcripts about once
every 15 minutes in real time, and a “mistake” is therefore
impossible. The BBC was desperately trying to please someone
very high up in the British establishment with its criminal lies
and deception, and was certainly not acting alone in these
obscene endeavours.
Almost identical lies were peddled on the same day
by Reuters, by the London Independent newspaper, by the
Scotsman, and by a host of lesser newspapers and magazines
stretching all the way from Canada to Australia. Just like me,
every editor and producer had access to the same transcripts
coming out of the same courtroom every fifteen minutes, meaning
that every editor and producer knew that he or she was printing
and broadcasting outright lies, designed to secure a fraudulent
and wrongful conviction for the Crown.
If there was ever a chance for the prosecution to
successfully “fit up” Ian Huntley, it was on this day, and in
the few days to come, using the generic Manchester United
T-shirts so conveniently “found” by police in the hangar
building at Soham College, but without a single trace of Holly
Wells’ or Jessica Chapman’s DNA on them, a fact openly admitted
by Crown Forensic Scientist Doctor Helen Davey.
Unfortunately for Ian Huntley, this was also the day
when the prosecution suffered a severe attack of amnesia about
known critical events directly relating to the period of the
search conducted in the immediate vicinity of Soham College, and
the “Hangar” in which the generic red Manchester United T-shirts
were eventually located.
If you read the court transcripts carefully, it
seems as though the hangar at Soham College was the private
domain of Ian Huntley, an illusion reinforced by claims that
Cambridgeshire police only investigated the hangar after finding
the keys in Ian Huntley’s house, after he was arrested. This is
absolute rubbish, a fact we will now prove using direct quotes
from same mainstream media who are currently trying to bury Ian
Huntley forever, on behalf of powerful figures within the
British establishment.
Readers will recall that Holly Wells and Jessica
Chapman went missing on 4 August 2002, with the generic red
Manchester United T-shirts subsequently located either on 16 or
17 August, depending on which report you prefer to believe. In
turn this means that the T-shirts remained hidden inside the
hangar for 12 or 13 days, a period during which you have been
led to believe that only Ian Huntley had access to the hangar..
Really? Try this from the Daily Mail of 6 August
2002: "Scores of American servicemen from nearby Mildenhall
airbase joined in the search of Soham and its college grounds”.
And this from the Times of London dated 7 August 2002: "On
Monday, hundreds of local people and American servicemen from
the United States Air Force bases at nearby Mildenhall and
Lakenheath also took part in the hunt. One staff sergeant from
Florida, who gave his name only as Eric, said he felt so closely
connected with the local community after spending part of his
childhood in the Fens when his father was an airman, that he
went straight to Soham.."
This mighty shock wave of military muscle went
through Soham College like the grim reaper, including the
exclusive “hangar” outbuilding and its contents, but found
nothing at all. From this search we therefore know that the red
generic Manchester United T-shirts were not there a full 48
hours after Huntley is alleged to have returned from the burial
site, and tried to “set fire to them in a bin”.
Nor does the problem end here. The additional
nightmare we build in at this point, is that the very people who
should have been investigated for the murders of Holly Wells and
Jessica Chapman, viz. American servicemen based at USAF
Mildenhall and Lakenheath, had direct unfettered access to what
the prosecution nowadays refer to in hushed terms as a critical
“crime scene” in the Soham College hangar. The hangar is not a
valid crime scene at all, having been contaminated “after the
event” by hundreds of unknown people.
The list of people who could have later stuffed
those generic Manchester United T-shirts into a waste bag
[obviously] bearing caretaker Huntley’s fingerprints is
virtually endless, and certainly includes a range of suspects
not merely limited to servicemen at Mildenhall and Lakenheath.
As the Daily Express reported on 13 August 2002,
“Cambridgeshire police are now being assisted [in the search] by
16 other forces as well as the Ministry of Defence and the RAF."
And this from the Western Daily Press dated 14 August 2002,
"More than 320 officers from 16 different forces, plus British
Transport Police as well as RAF and Ministry of Defence
personnel, are involved in the hunt."
At no time before 16 August 2002 was Soham College
or its hangar placed off limits to any of these search
personnel, and Soham locals advise searchers visited the College
and surrounding area many times, certainly until the bodies were
eventually located in the drainage ditch alongside the perimeter
wire at USAF Lakenheath.
If you all just sit by and let the British
Government and BBC convict Ian Huntley for the gratification of
a very sick elite, then you must share joint responsibility for
his fate, and the fate of others that will surely follow in his
footsteps if the pedophiles in high places are allowed to get
away with this test case.
Though you may think you can do nothing
individually, this is simply not true. Get off your backsides
and blast the Director General of the BBC by email, fax and
registered letter. Demand that he order his quislings to
apologize to Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr in television prime
time, and further order those quislings to make it abundantly
clear that there is absolutely no hard evidence connecting
either Ian Huntley or Maxine Carr with the abduction and murder
of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. The false BBC story is
linked here.

Trying to stay one step ahead
of the prosecution at a range of 10,000 miles is proving
increasingly difficult, resulting in increasing numbers of
international telephone calls from five “anonymous” throwaway
digital mobile telephones that cannot be traced. Unfortunately
this sort of telephone has a voracious appetite for pre-paid
phone cards over international distances, and I am having
trouble keeping up with the bills. Would anyone who is in a
position to help, please make a donation by clicking on the link
below, or send what you can afford by snail mail to “J. Vialls”,
45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020. Thank you for
caring.